Hi First I have to thanks to the users of this forums because it thanks to much of the info I got from here that I was able to claim a few PPI £!! I finally manage to claim some of the PPI that WELCOME has misold/forced me to take with a few loans I had with them over a few years, even though pre 2003 they referred me to the underwriter - AVIVA, for which now I am waiting for a reply. My question is related to a worthless healthcare insurancce that they package together with the PPI, even after I had disclosed that I suffered from several health problems, which would make impossible to ever made a claim, but again due to the desperation and urgency I took the loans anyway! On the refund WELCOME offer this premium is not included but I believe and once they accept the liability on the misselling, I should be entitled to the refund of this healthcare insurance on top of the PPI refund, and the same for any future offers from AVIVA= which was the underwriter of the PPI and healthcare ins. pre 2003. Does anyone have any advice or experiences on claiming this? Finally, I took a joint loan with directline loan back in 2004, for which my ex=partner manage to claim the PPI but I never got a cheque, and I thought the guidelines are that all parties involved should equal parts of any refunds, or am I wrong? Once again thank you all.

Switched my joint current account from Nationwide to the Co op in November 2014, switch completion date was about 14th November. I had written a cheque a few days before to pay my credit card bill using my Nationwide cheque book as I had yet to receive my Co op bank cheque book and posted this to the credit card company. The switch completed on the due date and I received a letter from Co operative bank confirming this. On 9th December 2014 I looked online at my credit card account and was horrified to see that my payment had been reversed, because the cheque I had written had been dishonoured and a £13 late patment fee had been charged. I have pursued a complaint with the Co op bank who dishonoured my cheque and they have issued thier final response which confirms that the cheque was dishonoured due to a bank error, they have offered an insulting £100 in compensation and provided me with a "To whom it may concern" letter for me to use in correcting any damage done to my financial reputation with my credit card company and the credit referance agencies. I thought that under the current account switch guarantee the "new bank" was supposed to put right ant damage caused due to it's error. Seems like the Co op bank sees things differently. My choice now is either proceed to the Financial Ombudsman or make an appointment with a solicitor to sue them. What is the best course of action ?

Firstly, Had an 'ECO' grant towards the cost of solid wall insulation all taken care of by Energycare Group of Haynes. http://www.energycaregroupltd.co.uk/about Surveyor came and said it would take a 2 weeks or less in Nov 2013. Work was completed in March 2014 after 50 calls to them. I was told by the surveyor and installers there was a SWIGA (Solid Wall Installation Guarantee Agency). The quality of work was very poor and they had to come back numerous times and caused damage to the property. Due to sight problems in the winter light I relied on their supervisor stating that the work was all ok and was pressured into signing the satisfaction form before the workers left as they kept saying they would not get paid until the form was signed. Complained through their 'Check-a- Trade' organisation they were registered with. Energycare Grooup came out with a pack of lies even though I sent them photographic evidence to the contrary. No result as Check-a Trade are paid by the companies. Complained to SWIGA but after more than 20 phone calls, letters and E-mails there was never any response. Complained to Ofgem as they are supposed to 'monitor' these organisations but again no response. After 3 months found that EnergyCare Group had not registered the work with SWIGA so not covered bt their ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) process. Found Energycare group had arranged an insurance backed warranty if they ceased trading but it was worth over £15000 less and no ADR process. Had purchased Legal cover with the house insurance through 'Wisecall Claims Assistance'. When reading the document that was sent, it is only a 9 month policy as they will not accept claims within the first 90 days of commencement of the policy. I thought at first this was only for new policies but it is in fact on renewals also. Never mind I thought, my claim was after the 90 day period so submitted a claim which Wisecall said to go through their underwriters, AU insurance services. The claim was rejected because I had not notified them within 90 days of the damage occuring, having lost 3 months going through SWIGA! Wise call said to send a letter in writing to their nameless managing director. This was done on 26th Aug this year. By 6th November, still no reply or acknowledgement so contacted Wisecall and they gave me an e-mail address a copy of original letter was resent to them. Still to date no acknowledgement or reply. I have been told to sue Energycare group for 'Breach of contract but dont know how or what redress that would bring. I have checked on the OFT Unfair contract terms and sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 seem relevent regarding time limits being imposed where a claim could not be brought earlier but still have no idea how to proceed now so any comments would be very welcome. statch ps Was also told to seek redress through Ofgen as their companies contributed to the cost so should help but ofgem very evasive and at first said it wasn't a consumer issue then after telling them all calls were recorded and contacting my mp a message was sent to get back to them, this I was unable to do at the time as I was in hospital so now just trying to pick up the pieces again.

Like many users on this forum we have experienced very poor and unfair practice from CarCraft and wondered if anyone had advice on how to proceed against CarCraft. We purchased a 59 plate Volkswagen Passat from the Lakeside branch for 10k, 45k miles on the clock. 10 months later in early November last year the car broke down on the m25 with my 5 year old daughter in the car. The car needed almost a complete new engine (after many investigations) to repair at a cost of £3600. We had serviced the car according to Volkswagen schedule between the purchase and the breakdown. CarCraft have declined both my initial claim and subsequent appeal to the 'review manager'. The key point car craft are putting forward is that the original cause of the breakdown was a failure of an alternator belt which is not covered within the guarantee. My point is that it cannot be right that a car that new, that is supposed to last to 250k + can breakdown so badly in such little time. Car Craft have sold a car that is not of usable quality, regardless of any narrow guarantee scheme they try to hide behind. We are left with a huge bill. We have a young family and wanted a reliable car, safe car, that would last us for years. We got none of that from car craft, we don't even have an apology. The cost of the repair is huge and car craft appear to be simply hiding behind the useless guarantee scheme. A £10k, 3 year old, Volkswagen simply should not have failed so badly. After two rejected claims attempts from the company I don't see any other option but to try the small claims court and I am looking at the process now. We had to use all our savings to repair the car so are desperate to try to recover the unfair costs. We have also been advised that due to the size of the repair the car us likely to also develop faults later on despite the best efforts of the repair garage. Any advice or does anyone have similar issues? Any advice on the small claims process or car craft responses. Would really appreciate any help.

Hi everyone, Having recently had a warranty voided by Samsung and Dixons PLC, after one the 2 Netbooks we purchased for my grandchildren was severely damaged either in transit to Samsung's repair centre, or by their UK contracted repairers (Digicare) I thought I ought to let other potential Dixons Group customers know of the risks they may be running when they purchase a Samsung product - the following risks may also apply to other major retailers, such as Tesco and Asda, who have told me they use the same service in the same way. This is the information I sent to the Office of Fair Trading for investigation. Letter to the OFT Dear Sirs, I am well aware that you do not investigate individual complaints against traders and therefore it does not ask you to investigate an individual single issue but a potentially widespread consumer issue that may be tantamount to fraud, within a major sector of the UK consumer (home electronics) market. Though the potential fraud may extend to several major retailers this request for investigation specifically concerns Samsung and its UK trading partner Dixons Group who together, with the potential collusion of Samsung’s contracted Couriers and their UK contracted repairers Digicare may have constructed a mechanism whereby they may be easily able to ‘ring fence’ themselves against their Warranty obligations, by effectively creating a barrier between consumers and their statutory rights under the 1979 Sale Of Goods Act (SOGA). The following is the so simple as to be almost elegant method they may be widely using to deprive what the Internet indicates may be a great many consumers of equitable treatment under SOGA 1979. 1) When a Samsung product fails to perform you are required to take it into the retailer under its Warranty. 2) When the fault is confirmed, instead of taking receipt of the goods for repair and receipting you for their condition, The Dixons’ Group retailer issues you with Samsung telephone number, tells you that you have to contact Samsung direct and then sends you home with the product. 3) When the consumer contacts Samsung and after they have gone through some basic checks to confirm the product is faulty they arrange for a Courier to pick up the product, from the consumer’s home address. 4) The courier picks up the product, without providing the consumer with a receipt stating the overall condition of the product and takes it to another party, in the form of Samsung’s UK contracted repairers (Digicare). 5) Because the consumer is neither warned of the potential need for, or granted any receipted evidence concerning the fault by the Courier the ‘repairers (Digicare) are then in a ‘bulletproof’ position to claim the fault is due to ‘misuse’ by the consumer, thereby voiding the Warranty. 6) Because the consumer is neither warned of the potential need for, or granted any receipted evidence concerning the condition of the product, by Dixons Group or the Courier, the ‘repairers (Digicare) are then in a ‘bulletproof’ position to claim any damage to the product that may be or has been caused by either the Courier during transit or by Digicare in their premises was caused by the consumer prior to collection, thereby voiding the Warranty 7) When the consumer quite rightly attempts to seek a lawful solution Samsung will support the Courier’s and Digicare’s claims, and Dixons’ will support Samsung’s support of the Couriers and Digicare’s claims, thereby voiding the consumer’s Warranty. 8) At this point, in the case of a faulty product, the consumer’s only options are either to pay for the repair or to have the faulty goods returned without repair, for a fee of £26.00 9) In the case of a product that may have been extensively damaged during transit or repair the consumer’s only options are to either pay for a repair, that may amount to more than the initial cost of the product, or have the damaged goods returned for a fee of £26.00 10)‘Trading Standards’ will advise you that Dixons (PC World) are responsible for the damage under The Sale Of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA). 11)After lengthy delays Dixons (PC World will inform you that Samsung has deemed your Warranty void, on the basis that it has to believe its repairers claim that either you misused the product, or the item was found to be damaged on receipt and, as such, their Warranty is void. 12) If you pursue the matter the Courier, Digicare, Samsung and Dixons Group will continue to support each other to the point where ‘Trading Standards’ will eventually tell you that due to the way the item was conveyed to Digicare (from the consumer’s home) the damage has become a civil issue and you will have to determine liability via a Judge, through the small claims court. 13) This potential collusion between the retailer (Dixons Group), the Couriers, Digicare and Samsung makes it virtually impossible to ‘pin down’ the responsible party and even if a small claims court judgement rules in your favour, it may be virtually impossible to collect the debt if they decline to pay. 14) If the item cost less than £600.00 the consumer cannot even upgrade their legal action to the high court, which does have the power to enforce collection of damages, through its court appointed officer. Thus you can very easily see the Warranty process has been so obfuscated by the involved parties as to turn it into a lottery. I would therefore reiterate my request that the OFT investigate the issue, with a view to compelling the forenamed parties to create and engage in a Warranty process that is manifestly transparent, equitable to all parties and free from all possibility of unfair manipulation Yours faithfully etc.

Can anyone tell me what the law is on planning application time limits are? Do the council have to place a notice on the building that is the subject of the planning application and if so do they have to allow a certain amount of time between posting the notice and actually making a planning decision? Thanks in advance.